[9399] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Aikens last (but long) posting/comments on ISOC and related issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov)
Tue Jan 4 10:51:11 1994
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 7:49:56 -0800 (PST)
From: AIKEN@ccc.nersc.gov
To: braden@isi.edu, ietf@ietf.cnri.reston.va.us, com-priv@psi.com
Cc: isoc-trustees@cnri.reston.va.us, vcerf@cnri.reston.va.us,
I would like to apologize in advance for this long msg so only
read on if you wish. I also have posted it to the IETF list because
I believe that these are important issues that should get the widest
circulation as possible - I have not seen anyone object to these
postings yet so ... I also intend this to be my last since this
takes much to much time (away from other work) and yes many
are probably getting tired of the thread.
I would like to address (clarify) a few issues that others have again raised
with respect to my original questions about the scope of the ISOC and related
topics.
1) I was not sure how to interpret Chuck Brownstein's msg, especially "So ISOC
acts should represent more than 'defensive'
posturing by the traditional community of creator-users..."
So I'll pass on any further comment
2) I was distressed with Bob Braden's being distressed with
my statements/questions. I have been trying to ascertain
what the ISOC is - I thought it was a professional society- yet
I see that it claims governance over the IETF (who by the
way may not share the same understanding) and its standards
process. So, since many DOE contractors and others attend and
participate I worry about their (and mine) liablity and how the
new "copyright" policy fits in with each and every organizations'
rules on patent and copyright (especially as defined in the latest
draft of the RFC process). In addition, every time I ask for
clarification of the ISOC and its scope it ranges from a
professional society to a standards process to an operational
forum. Since its been hard to know what the ISOC is - its been
hard to relate to it. Vint has just recently (again) said that the
ISOC is NOT interested in operational issues- yet I then see many
people (whom I assume are ISOC affiliates )
say that the ISOC should GOVERN ,or steer, or deal with
operational or interoprability issues (and it wasn't clear to me
at least that they are talking about standards only )
- so I never know what to make of it. The ISOC is parent to
the IAB and IESG who runs the WGs for the IETF who has BOFs on
operational issues. Following the law of transitivity I see the ISOC
involved in operational issues - ORAD? (and I'm not reffering to the
development of standards ). I am seeking clarification ( as Tony
Hain has reiterated for me in an earlier msg) so that I can form
an opinion. Also, as Steve Wolff has so poignantly pointed out-
It is a sad day indeed when an organization or individual cannot
withstand some questions or soul searching. Maybe my days at
DOE and NSF (ie. Government - everyone says we can do nothing
right ) in the proverbial hot seat have hardened me, but I rather
think that I am lucky that my last 3 in line mangers were confident
enough and cared enough to actually expect me to question and
critique everything - with the intent to improve and excell. And
this attitude is not directed at ISOC only - I also direct it against
Government - I was the one who started the process to have the
FEDs re-evaluate the GOSIP mandate - and my Management backed
me and took the lead, enlisting the aid of Vint and the FNC to do so-
which led to the FIRP . Its this type of "don't question us" that gives
me uneasys feeling about the current ISOC and IAB mind set (yes I
know that not all ISOC members are afraid of constructive
criticism) . I always encourage the people I know and work with
,especially my children, to question and critique mandates, laws,
and processes at all levels. Guess I'm just an old die hard
liberal civil-libertarian.
Bob B asked if I would feel more comfortable if Internet
standards were with GOV - I say not necesarily - all I seek is a clear
and democratic process (not Quasi- I don't accept quasi-
government at any level and I don't accept quasi in my professional
career either). As I said before I look for open, well defined
processes that are democratic and have a well defined process
for closure. As an example - it is possible that the IETF
become part of the IEEE, who has already dealt with the liability,
copyright, when to inject standards into the international process
(yes I now that it is via a national body but it works and the IEEE
is international and already established), etc.. Is this the only
option - NO- but is it one that is neither US gov nor ISOC nor ...
- so other options do exist.
In reply to Bob B's statement that there would be no operational
coordination issues until there is consensus: I ask 3 questions:
1) Why is there still talk about a bof to investigate this
very issue at the next IETF mtg?
2) how will we know when consensus is reached?
- when the HUM drowns out the sound
of a passing Concord? Ah - that dread word - VOTE - by
individual or organization? These are complex issues that
will not go away.
3) Why is ISOC (and not another org or just an adhoc group)
to be the "locus for organizing coordination groups"?
As far as the ISOC newsletter - well I hope the ISOC was formed
for more than a newsletter (no matter how good) - the INET
conferences are an offsoot of the NET conferences (that already
had an international audience) so that doesn't qualify. Also,
I though the concept of "automatically" registering attendees
of the INET conferences as ISOC members (even for a 6 month
period) was in poor taste. This was NOT voluntary membership
per se. I was only responding to NOEL's statement that he
could not imagine the INternet without the ISOC and what it
has done (not what it can do - which I believe is what Vint
is addressing ) - so in my ignorance and having followed
the ISOC since its inception I asked for specific cases. This was
not questioning if ISOC should exist - although until a very clear
definition and scope is firmly established and consistently
reinforecd throughout the ISOC its hard to know if I object to the
ISOC's existence or not (I know Vint's position on this
operational issue - but even Vint is only one of the person's
on the ISOC and only one voice -albeit an important one.
Remember what happened to the Russian Revolution earlier this
century when Stalin took over for that strong voice of
LENIN). That is why I continually seek clarification. I can say
I have absolutley no problem with ISOC being a professional
society . I can also say that I beleive there should be NO
sinlge entity "responsible" for operational issues of the
INternet (I'm not talking about protocols here). ISOC's role
as a standards body still concerns me due to a number of issues-
some already have been stated here - again I will point
to the way the IPng/ROAD and then the OSI(TUBA) vs TCP
issues have been handled in the past.
I am also confused about Bob B's statement that the ISOC was
formed to "fill the funding gap...". An earlier statement by Noel C.
said that the ISOC was formed to protect people wrt liability
issues. This is another case where there is confusion from
the ISOC viewpoint. Also, the ISOC has existed for awhile now
so why does it still require US FED funding to run the IETF?
The Feds don't directly fund the IEEE. WE do send our people to
both IEEE and IETF (and other fourms) to participate, and I
assume that we will continue to do so - barring any legal
problems. I believe that is how the Feds should contribute.
Bob B also stated that "technical judgements must be made in
advance of marketing", AND " There seems no choice but to
set up an administrative mechanism (which could be considered
a form of peer review), to promote the good ideas and to apply
some back pressure against the occasional bad idea". These are
the type of statements that give me concern. Decisions as to
what is a good idea or bad are very difficult. WHy should the
ISOC be vested with such power. This could create a "one size
fits all situation" and/or adversely affect a niche application/
protocol from becoming a reality or product. I like to see
DARWIN's theory and the market place decide - which is what
the IETF used to be- and is the way the TCP/IP suite has been
developed. That is why I have always fought against the
special status given the OSI protocols in the US GOSIP and
will continue to oppose any similar attitude being fostered
in the IETF/ISOC (ie. preference to one set of protocol"s.
As Steve Wolff points out - I speak as myself - but yes there
are others in the Government and industry who have confided
with me that they share similar concerns. IN addition,
I was not necesarily opposing ISOC, I had questions and if the
ISOC feels that hard questions are attacks then I think the ISOC
is in big trouble. And I don't see how that "harms the Internet".
I thought that the Internet was born and bred of such reflective
and introspective questions and analysis?
3) With respect to my comments about "not being a lawyer - but
I was still concerned with the liability issues". Two people
said they believe that the ISOC offers them (as individuals)
protection. I have spoken to people in the government on this
issue (general council types - ie. lawyers) and they have stated
that the laibility issue is not resolved in this case (based on
prior cases and suites), especially with respect to an individual's
liability who participates in any way in the IETF process. I have
been told that the IEEE, as an example does not share this
problem. IF anyone can clarify this - please do so. But you can
see that I need to be "concerned" about this until the liability,
copyright (with respect to the funding agency, company, or
individual), etc. is clarified and settled .
SO: in closing -
1) I was asking for claification as to the ISOC, its charter
and role wrt standards, operational issues, and as a
professional society. See my earlier discussion on this.
2) I am still concerned about Copyright, Patent, derivative
works, liability, etc. - for all invloved in the IETF
process (especially for DOE contractors)
3) I was not attacking the ISOC - however , I see no reason
not to apply critical thinking to it, its role, etc. I do
the same on pending legislation (both state and federal)
and on Governmental orders and mandates.
Yours in closing and with good spirit.
May the roads slope downward and the wind be at your back.
bob aiken
bob aiken
